Focused Clinical Question How should clinicians manage dental extraction sockets when immediate implant placement is contraindicated, and alveolar ridge preservation is expected to result in inadequate bone volume for implant placement? Summary Three fundamental options for extraction socket management form a hierarchical continuum in sites where dental implant placement is planned: place an immediate implant, perform ridge preservation, or perform ridge augmentation. The available volume and quality of bone and keratinized mucosa are the primary considerations driving the decision, and each tier in the continuum encompasses a variety of techniques with attendant advantages and disadvantages. Conclusions Some immediate implant protocols require no mucoperiosteal flap and possibly produce the most favorable clinical and patient‐centered outcomes compared with other extraction socket management approaches. Conversely, guided bone regeneration at dental extraction sites can result in substantial gains in alveolar ridge dimensions, although this treatment may adversely influence mucosal architecture and carry increased risk of postoperative morbidity. When favorable bone and mucosa are present at a dental extraction site, immediate implant placement may be the treatment of choice, barring unusual circumstances. Ridge preservation, typically associated with minimal postoperative morbidity, is a rational second choice when acceptable ridge dimensions are anticipated after healing.

Introduction Whether or not laser use provides any meaningful benefit at immediate implant and ridge preservation sites remains an open question in periodontics. However, various lasers have been used in conjunction with tooth extraction and immediate implant placement. Evidence supporting adjunctive laser irradiation at immediate implant and ridge preservation sites is mostly limited to preclinical studies and a small number of case reports. Case Series Adjunctive neodymium‒doped: yttrium, aluminum, garnet (Nd:YAG) laser irradiation was used at six immediate implant sites and five ridge preservation sites. Three immediate implants were in maxillary incisor positions and three were in premolar positions, two maxillary and one mandibular. All cases exhibited favorable healing and satisfactory clinical outcomes. Conclusions Nd:YAG laser energy application with 650‐µs pulse duration consistently supported rapid clot formation and graft containment at immediate implant and ridge preservation sites. Histologic analyses and controlled clinical trials comparing ridge preservation and immediate implant procedures with and without laser use are needed. Because cellular responses and clinical outcomes may be exquisitely sensitive to irradiation parameters, studies should report materials and methods in detail.

Focused Clinical Question What factors identify the optimal surgical technique when a distal wedge procedure is indicated at a terminal maxillary or mandibular molar site? Summary Incision design for the distal wedge procedure is based primarily on the dental arch (maxilla or mandible), the distance from the terminal molar to the hamular notch or ascending ramus, and the dimensions of the attached gingiva. Conclusions In most situations, favorable clinical results are achievable irrespective of the chosen distal wedge method, and technique selection is based more on operator preference than evidence. However, anatomic limitations can render distal wedge procedures challenging in some cases, and procedural advantages of specific techniques can simplify treatment. One systematic approach to distal wedge technique selection is presented in this report. Additionally, a laser‐assisted distal wedge protocol is presented for cases in which unfavorable tooth‐to‐ramus distance or presence of a prominent external oblique ridge contraindicates conventional distal wedge techniques.

No abstract